Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 10:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Our experiance of the reality around us is filtered throuth our senses. I.E. touch, taste, scent, hearing, touch. (Don't think I've missed any?)

Only a few. Big Grin Humans have a lot more than 5 senses.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 01:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 09:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you refer to a thought, something held to be true, as product of this, you would be speaking of an electrical/neuro chemical pathway in you brain, that corresponds to this thought. At the same time, if your concession here is true, I wouldn't be able to tell if things that travel through this electrical/neuro chemical pathway in your brain are in fact true, by this observation.

Some brains are trained to evaluate certain evidence. They are authorities on their subjects ... and they submit their work, (which meets scientific criteria in specific ways) to scrutiny. You're attempting to create a strawman and then knock it down.

Yes. You can alter neuro-chemical pathways. But you can test for that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 12:31 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 12:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 11:45 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  And second, the predictive aspect IS mind-independent, at least in the sense of the present mind. It's a prediction about what will be sensed and experienced in the future, based on current actions. A false prediction -- say, walking/flying/sailing around a "flat" earth without falling off the edge, or seeing it cast a round shadow on the moon in different eclipses at different times of night -- indicates that the previous belief was false in a way that CANNOT BE DETERMINED simply by how that false belief was encoded in the brain. There would be nothing about how that belief was stored in our neural wetwork prior to checking that would indicate that it was true or false.

I'm also agreeing with HoC. You seem to have been lying about this being a simple question.

Ah, this is missing something.

When I initially held that false belief, it was prior to those later experiences of not falling off the edge, or seeing a round shadow on the moon. A variety of conscious and perhaps unconscious experiences, observations, etc.. fired those earlier neurochemical reactions, that arose that sensation that it was true. A later experience of seeing a shadow, or not falling of an edge when sailing, send another series of neurochemical reactions in my brain, that arose a sensation that my earlier beliefs were wrong, and that the world is round is true.

Yes, our understanding is filtered through our minds, which to all appearances are a product of and housed in our brains.

Going back to your original question of whether it would be possible to tell a true belief from a false one with a perfect brainscan (ie, whether that information is somehow present in the brain at all)....

Let's say we get two people, one of whom firmly believes, say, that it will rain at a given location tomorrow, and another who firmly believes it will not. On the basis of THAT SCAN ALONE, would we be able predict the weather based on some difference of how those two beliefs were stored in each persons brain? If not, then the truth value of a belief is not something that can be determined simply by how the belief is stored in the brain, which was your original question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
19-09-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 11:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The question here is in regards to rational thinking. Isn’t rational thinking reducible to electrical/neuro pathways in the brain? If so, are all thoughts that travel through these same exact pathways rational?

Oh. It's this nonsense again.

I've been over this before, and it's honestly one of the most pathetically simple concepts I've ever had to lay out for someone. I have no idea why you seem to have so much trouble with this.

What neural pathways a given thought takes is irrelevant to whether or not that thought is rational, any more than the specific neural pathways you use to solve a math problem are relevant to whether or not you got the right answer. Logic is not dependent on your feelings any more than mathematics is. They are both clearly defined systems with explicitly defined syntax and rules. Whether or not a thought is mathematically accurate is decided only by whether or not that thought matches up to the rules of mathematics, not whether or not you believe it does, or which specific part of your brain lights up when you think it.

Yes, all thoughts are reducible to neurochemical reactions. Yes, this includes rational thoughts. It also includes irrational thoughts.

Thoughts about the rules of rationality are reducible to chemical reactions. So are thoughts about the rules of hockey. This does not mean that we can tell whether or not a thought is an accurate representation of the rules of hockey without comparing it to the rules of hockey.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
19-09-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
If brains were built like computers -- all exactly the same -- you could hook up a brain and get 100 percent "yes" or "no" - "truth" or "lie" outcomes.....

But, seeing brains are varied - due to genetics and environmental factors such as upbringing, nutrition and brain injuries --- probably not.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 01:51 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 01:58 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Here’s a simple question.

Is there likely to be a neurochemical distinction between the beliefs you hold as true, but are actually false, and beliefs you hold as true, and are actually true?

Is it likely that one day we may be able to just look at the scans of a person’s brain, and tell by these scans which beliefs are actually true, and which are actually false?
No, observation of a human brain does not give the answers of the universe. To find out if the Higgs bosson exists we must build a Hadron Collider and examine fundamental particles of various energies rather than examine a human brain.

This is why we document our data, rules, evidence, claims etc. So that it can be seen by many people and processed by many brains.
The scientific method is a reliable method to overcome the bias of an individual brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 12:57 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If brains were built like computers -- all exactly the same -- you could hook up a brain and get 100 percent "yes" or "no" - "truth" or "lie" outcomes.....

Brains are computers. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of this statement, but brains are computers in the absolute most literal sense.

The brain is a Turing-complete device. Any Turing-complete device is, by definition, a computer. There are a hell of a lot of delicate fiddly bits in there, because brains are really a bit of a mess when you get right down to it, so it's often difficult to track a single computational process completely, but the brain is very much a computer.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
You guys... theist puts truth into the title, wherever it's going, that ain't it. Tongue

(19-09-2015 08:56 AM)Octapulse Wrote:  That might be the one, I'm not 100% on that

This google fu produced that result. Wink

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:04 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 02:00 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You guys... theist puts truth into the title, wherever it's going, that ain't it. Tongue
I was going to say "Yeah but he didn't capitalise it" but then I took another look at the title.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 10:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think that would require changing the question. I'm not asking whether we could likely tell based on an observation of our neurochemistry, if i'm telling a bluff, or gauge my confidence in something that I hold as true. All of which we likely can. Because none of this say anything about what in fact is true or not.

The thing that I'm trying to work through here and reconcile, which i don't have a complete argument for one way or the other, but just sort of building one, is that there's an external reality outside of my head, referred to here as the actual truth. While it's external to our minds here, external to the neurochemistry of our brains, it can only be observed and acknowledged through our minds, filtered through the neurochemistry of our brains. My questions, and the OP are interested in the reconciliation of this dynamic.

I see. In that case, I would say no. We could only ascertain whether the person being examined believes something and like I said, that is completely independent of that thing being true. Now, we could possibly come to some sort of consensus which, let's face it, is what we actually have done thus far already. If you were to do your scan on someone from 1000 years ago and asked them about the shape of the earth, they would likely say it was flat, completely believe it, and the scan would probably reflect that. However, if I understood your more detailed explanation, that would get us absolutely no closer to "true reality" then we could get by just sitting down and discussing it. Now, it could help weed out people who are lying but that seems to me to be about it.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: